|
Post by Donna on Jun 14, 2012 0:24:11 GMT -5
Members of Congress should be entitled to the same health insurance, the same pension plans, the same federal holidays and paid vacations as the typical working American citizen. The benefits each member receives should be directly correlated to the amount of time served. So, for example, someone who serves only 2 years, should be entitled to benefits for only two after leaving office NOT for life.
|
|
|
Post by maureenmower on Jun 14, 2012 0:55:11 GMT -5
Actually, I don't see why they need pensions at all, unless they are retiring from ALL forms of work when they leave office. At the very least they should not be able to collect those pensions until age 65 or after, and only if they have served a minimum of 10 years in office. Anything less than that, let them pay into SS like everyone else.
However, I agree completely that they should have to work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, with no more holidays or time off than the average, mid management level worker. Granted, since they have to travel to DC regularly, they should get more time with the family during holidays - but not the month long vacations they take now.
I would say two weeks for the Christmas/New Year break, one week for Easter, one for Thanksgiving, and 2 weeks in mid-summer. That is already at least 2 weeks more than most mid-level managers get in a lifetime, even if they stay at one company.
Granted they do have to spend some time in their home districts to meet with constituents - but let's make sure that is what they are actually doing. Require them to punch a time clock every morning and evening, and document any time they spend away from the office - just like a regular worker must do.
Oh, and playing golf with a campaign contributor does NOT qualify as meeting with a constituent.
|
|
|
Post by dunnnathan on Jun 14, 2012 2:17:44 GMT -5
I just wrote this in reply to this image: www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150894020488441&set=p.10150894020488441&type=1&theaterThis isn't exactly true. The President and members of Congress can receive a pension, but it is a percentage of their salary while in office. Congressmen must have served at least 5 years to even be eligible, then their pension is calculated by number of years served and an average of their salaries for the last 3 years served. Regardless, even if the figures were correct, there are 4 living retired Presidents ($1,800,000 per year), 158 living former Senators ($27,492,000 per year), and 893 living former Representatives ($155,382,000 per year). Assuming that every living former Senator and Representative is collecting that salary (which in reality they aren't), that's a grand total of $184,674,000 per year. One hundred and eighty-five million dollars. There are 103,700 troops stationed in Afghanistan. If we ignore the other 1,327,195 active duty troops, and just focus on those in Afghanistan (as the image does), we get $3,940,600,000 per year. In May, 2012, 37,744 seniors collected Social Security. Using the image's numbers (which seem to be low), we get $452,928,000. So for soldiers in Afghanistan and seniors on Social Security we pay $4,393,528,000 per year. Four billion, three hundred and ninety-four million dollars. The Federal Budget for 2012 was $3,796,000,000,000. Three trillion, seven hundred and ninety-six billion dollars. Based on what we just figured (using partially erroneous dollar amounts, remember), salaries for former elected officials would account for 0.00486% of the budget. Social Security for seniors and paying troops in Afghanistan would account for 0.11574% of the budget. If you want to make a case for higher troop salaries, take a look at the Department of Defense's budget. For 2012, it was allocated $688,300,000,000. Remember that (supposed) salaries for troops in Afghanistan totaled $3,940,600,000. That's 0.57251% of the 2012 Department of Defense budget. Half of a percent. I'm not going to dig for what the other 99.5% of the money went for. Obviously, some of it is salary for the rest of the troops and the civilian employees. I would wager most of it went for equipment and operational expenses. So maybe we should cut back on the operations, reduce the need for the equipment, and maybe give our servicemen a bump with the savings.
|
|
|
Post by jondenn on Jun 14, 2012 5:19:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dunnnathan on Jun 14, 2012 11:53:33 GMT -5
In my ramblings, I missed the fact that the chart that I was using for the number of seniors receiving Social Security was in thousands. The correct number is 37 million.
|
|
|
Post by maureenmower on Jun 14, 2012 13:12:50 GMT -5
Why are you including Social Security in that at all? It is NOT part of the federal budget, as it has it's own revenue (from our paychecks). There may come a time when it will have to be subsidized (if all the projections about the fund running in the red in 2037 or whenever) - but that is NOT the case right now.
Therefore, just use the numbers for the troops in Afghanistan and leave Social Security alone.
|
|
|
Post by dunnnathan on Jun 14, 2012 22:28:06 GMT -5
Maureen: the image listed the average income of a senior on Social Security, so that was what I responded to. Really, the main point is to illustrate that we spend far more on other things, and that the rumors circulating (specifically that congressmen receive salary for life, as donna and the image both state) are flat-out wrong. Congressional pensions ARE tied to length of service, and a Congressman isn't even eligible for any kind of pension until he has served 5 years (re-elected twice).
|
|
|
Post by dunnnathan on Jun 14, 2012 22:38:25 GMT -5
This is the image in question, repeating the same assertion that donna made that elected officials continue to receive salaries for life.
|
|
john
New Member
Texas-12
Posts: 39
|
Post by john on Jun 15, 2012 13:58:28 GMT -5
Congressional earnings and pensions are the type of problem that can be resolved by the congress and the people AFTER Public Financing of Elections is adopted. Let us not micromanage.
|
|
|
Post by maureenmower on Jun 16, 2012 11:08:38 GMT -5
Nathan,
I saw the same chart being posted by some of my Facebook friends. The problem is, we have no way of verifying it's accuracy. There's no source listed, and from the last sentence, it's obviously one of those chain posts that are so damn annoying. Plus, I have the same problem with it that I stated above - Social Security should not be on it at all. Granted the average benefit to a senior is far less than it should be, but it's not coming out of the federal budget and isn't contributing a dime to the federal deficit either, so it doesn't belong on that chart.
Now, in terms of actual numbers, we'd save a LOT more money bringing the troops home from Afghanistan than we ever will cutting the salaries and/or pensions of members of Congress and current/former Presidents. It's not just the average salary for the soldier - there are the billions we pay to companies like Haliburton to provide (often sub-standard) support services (like the showers that electrocuted our own troops).
|
|